Ombudsman clears Liban

The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled that resigned director general Dante Liban of the Technological Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence as to the complaint of violation of Republic Act 3019.

Liban also did not give unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to any party, nor did any private party or even the government suffer undue injury as a consequence of his official actions.

The law requires that undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.

The Ombudsman also ruled, in the absence of proof to show that alleged delay to act on request for investigation of sale of ARBs and the issuance of an inventory of approved ARBs, was for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary benefit or advantage, the charge of violation of sec. 3 (f), RA 3019 should not prosper.

Finding absence of probable cause, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint against Liban for violation of sec. 3 (e) and (f) of RA 3019, filed by Lorenzo Langomez, president of the Philippine Association of Recruitment Agencies Deploying Artists Inc. and Confederated Association of Licensed Entertainment Agencies (CALEA), and Alfredo Palmierry, chairman of PARADA.

A careful scrutiny of the records conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman reveals that there is no reasonable ground to indict respondent for violation of sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 considering that the allegations of complaints are vague, there being no statement of the particular acts of respondent, and not a hint of evidence was proffered by complainants Langomez and Palmierry to show that respondent had a hand in the alleged illegal sale of artist’s record books.

The findings of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Banknotes and Securities Printing Department, as to the authenticity of the "paper, ink and laminate" do not include the signatures of the respondent as the evaluation was made "on the booklets only, handwritten entries being excluded therefrom."

Complainants also failed to prove that the replacement of the organic personnel with non-organic personnel was violative of sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

From the forgoing, the Ombudsman deduced that Liban did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence nor gave unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to any party.

Likewise, Langomez and Palmierry failed to prove that they, or any private party or even the government, suffered from undue injury as a consequence of the actions of respondent for the law requires that undue injury be specified, quantified and proven to the point of moral certainty.

As to the charge of violation of sec. 3 (f) of RA 3019, that the respondent neglected or refused to act on their request for investigation of the sale of ARBs and issuance of an inventory of approved ARBs, the Ombudsman ruled that no proof exists to show that such delay, even if there is such a delay, was for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or material benefit or advantage.

In a statement, Liban expressed great relief and joy on the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint filed by Langomez and Palmierry as this was a conspiracy to stop the reforms he had initiated in TESDA’s Overseas Artist Performing Unit, and his determined effort to take the entertainment or OPAs sector out of the Authority by January 2003 as earlier planned.

A principal author of the TESDA law, Liban has consistently and publicly stated that the talents for singing and/or dancing embedded in the entertainment sector is not within its mandate.

TESDA is the government’s arm to develop competencies and skills to make workers skillful and globally competitive.